The Supreme Court has quashed an FIR registered against a Lekhapal attached to the Forest Range Office in Paratwada, holding that her refusal to undergo a medical examination does not constitute the offence of voluntarily obstructing a public servant under Section 186 IPC. The Bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Arun Palli set aside the High Court of Judicature at Bombay’s order, which had declined to intervene in the case.
The prosecution claimed that the Forest Range Officer reported the appellant was intoxicated and causing a disturbance. Police took her to the Sub-District Hospital in Achalpur for a medical examination, accompanied by forest staff and police personnel. She resisted the examination but was eventually persuaded, and her blood sample was collected for submission to the police station.
Based on these allegations, the police registered an FIR under Sections 186 and 189 of the IPC, along with Sections 110 and 117 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. The High Court initially refused to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash these proceedings.
Legal Reasoning
The Court analyzed the prosecution’s version of events, noting that the allegations only suggested the appellant resisted her own medical examination before ultimately undergoing it. The Bench observed that this conduct cannot be classified as “voluntarily obstructing” a public servant, especially since the witnesses confirmed she eventually submitted to the test.
Regarding Section 189 IPC, the Court noted the provision applies only when a person threatens injury to a public servant or someone in their interest to induce them to delay an official act. The Court found this element absent in the facts. It also struggled to connect the other charges, noting that Section 110 deals with indecent language or disorderly behaviour in public, while Section 117 merely prescribes penalties for contraventions of specific sections of the Police Act.
Related: Global Energy System Faces Rising Risks at SPIEF 2026
Ultimately, the Court held that the conduct described in the FIR did not fit the language of the law. The Bench observed that the act attributed to the appellant will not be covered in the phrase “voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public function.” Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and quashed the chargesheet and Final Report pending before the Judicial Magistrate.
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Mr. Subodh S. Patil, Advocate-on-Record.
For the Respondent: Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Advocate; Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Advocate; Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Advocate-on-Record.
Case Title: Ashwini Anantrao Deshpande vs. State of Maharashtra